SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 3929

ARUNA JAGADEESAN
T. Muthu – Appellant
Versus
R. Kamalakkannan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :P. Ariudai Nambi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Subramanian, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. The appellant who is the plaintiff in the Original Suit has filed this second appeal against the judgment passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.103 of 2001 dated 31.01.2003 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Villupuram made in O.S.No.183 of 1993 dated 19.06.2001.

2. The background facts which are necessary and absolutely germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

a) For convenience, the party shall be referred as arrayed as before the trial court. According to the plaintiff, the suit road belong to the Kandamangalam Panchayat Union and is used by the general public of the Seramangalam Village. It is classified as road in the revenue records and the patta is in the name of the Commissioner of Kandamangalam Panchayat Union. To the north of the Panchayat road the defendant has got his property. On the east of the defendants property, the plaintiff purchased a property by virtue of a sale deed dated 23.04.1990 and has built a house and he is in possession of the said property. According to the plaintiff from the date of his purchase, he has been using the suit road to reach his pr





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top